*Official* Fourth Test at Headingley

[GIMH]

Heavy rain forecasted tonight. Tomorrow looks set to be okay, but looks like the Corrin curse continues, might be a delayed start.

 

[Ikki]

I wasn't referring to Swann's stats; I was talking about how you ignored the most important stat currently - the fact that it's 1-0.

And why should I refer to it when my point has absolutely zilch to do with it? I said Swann is getting hammered, how does England being 1-0 disprove that?

Swann has had two poor Tests FTR, and one great one. If he has another good one and we win it, I don't give a **** if he winds up averaging 100 for the series.

And I don't care that you don't care, so there. . I care.

He never got 'belted' by India really, but the scorecard probably said he did, so good call

On a separate note, what's GMAFB?

Of course, he could average 100 and since you don't care for stats then he could have looked great, right?

P.S. Give-Me-A-****ing-Break.

 

[andyc]

**** me I'm excited for this Test. I just hope that Clark finally plays.

 

[aussie]

Massive, massive difference. McGrath was rushed back in because he was pivotal to winning the series and is an all-time great, not to mention had form behind him. Lee is well away from any of those things as it stands.

Right here is the double standard. Yes McGrath was the all-time great, but did that stop him going into the Oval test with lack of match practice just like Lee?. No. When McGrath played at OT, he LOOKED no way close to the bowler he was at Lord's. You remember how we bowled almost that entire first session & basically looked lazy for rest of that test.

Being an All-time great doesn't make your body recover better than others.

People unfortunately just have an odd fear that based on Lee's pass record in ENG in 01 & 05, that if he plays those performances will be relived. Surely Lee could not have lost all the strides that he made from Super test 05 - WI 08 before he got injured. The Ashes warm-up certainly proved that.

If those professional physio's do their job & pass him fit, he has to play.

 

[aussie]

Australia consider pace barrage

This is absolute nonsense imo,. Hauritz' place seems to be in danger because they wanna somehow accomadate Lee into the side, Clark/Siddle, Hilf and Johnson seem likely to be the other three quicks.

Nope. If 4 seamers finally do play. It will the smartest bowling selection since IND 07/08. Since lets not fool ourselves AUS should have been playing 4 seamers since NZ 08. AUS selectors have avoided it long enough.

[Ponting has himself said that the pitch at Headingley looks dry and hard, but still for some reason he seems to think the ball would/could seam around, and if he thinks he would be better served having an extra quick to exploit the swinging conditions, then its time to realise that apart from Hilfy, none of the other Aussie quicks really swing the ball, so I really don't know what he is talking about.

If the pitch is dry, surely reverse swing becomes a factor. Thus Lee is in buisness, Hilfenhaus, plus potentially Siddle based on how he bowled @ Sydney early this year.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Right here is the double standard. Yes McGrath was the all-time great, but did that stop him going into the Oval test with lack of match practice just like Lee?. No. When McGrath played at OT, he LOOKED no way close to the bowler he was at Lord's. You remember how we bowled almost that entire first session & basically looked lazy for rest of that test.

Being an All-time great doesn't make your body recover better than others.

People unfortunately just have an odd fear that based on Lee's pass record in ENG in 01 & 05, that if he plays those performances will be relived. Surely Lee could not have lost all the strides that he made from Super test 05 - WI 08 before he got injured. The Ashes warm-up certainly proved that.

If those professional physio's do their job & pass him fit, he has to play.

Lee hasn't made strides. He just flits between expensive nothingness and the occasional time when he actually moves it off the straight and becomes a very dangerous bowler. He's done it throughout his career.

 

[tooextracool]

God, so AWTA. Comparing him to McGrath is crazy.

Forget the stats, Lee needs to be bowling his balls off to be effective, anything short and he's generally pretty rank. Expecting him to walk into the middle of a Test series and start dominating with no cricket under his belt? No chance.

Maybe he is. For the first time in my life, I would advocate a selection based on how he bowled in the nets, and IMO if he was still bowling like he was in the warm up game against the Lions, he should be a shoo-in.

 

[four_or_six]

I really don't think Lee will play. Ponting's take:

"Brett ran in and bowled as he has in a long time yesterday in the nets and most of us batters were on the receiving end of a few short ones. He bowled with good pace but the selectors will be wondering if he has done enough bowling at full pace to warrant selection in a Test match."

 

[tooextracool]

There was a big debate in another thread if you recall about how good Swann is. He isn't that good and by the two good sides he has faced in his career he has been belted. You GMAFB. Having 1 decent test and two absolutely rank bad ones doesn't mean a bowler is doing OK. He's averaging almost 60 with the ball FFS.

Firstly, lets get this straight. Swann has not had 2 poor 'tests'. In reality, he's had 2 poor innings, given that outside of those 2 innings hes bowled 2 overs. Furthermore, I think your argument is based on very little footage of watching him bowl. Swann was brilliant in the 2nd innings at Lords, and someone as reputed (and often disparaging) as Ian Chappell has suggested as such. Most forum members on here have watched him bowl both in India and in the WI and they know how good he is. To base your argument on how he looked in those 2 innings, and I honestly don't think hes ever bowled as badly as he did at Cardiff, is not just ridiculous but somewhat perfunctory to say the very least.

 

[Ikki]

Firstly, lets get this straight. Swann has not had 2 poor 'tests'. In reality, he's had 2 poor innings, given that outside of those 2 innings hes bowled 2 overs. Furthermore, I think your argument is based on very little footage of watching him bowl. Swann was brilliant in the 2nd innings at Lords, and someone as reputed (and often disparaging) as Ian Chappell has suggested as such. Most forum members on here have watched him bowl both in India and in the WI and they know how good he is. To base your argument on how he looked in those 2 innings, and I honestly don't think hes ever bowled as badly as he did at Cardiff, is not just ridiculous but somewhat perfunctory to say the very least.

The irony. If his captain rated him he would have certainly bowled more than a few overs in this innings. The reality is, he wasn't bowled for good reason, and when he was he got pummeled. He has faced 3 sides, India, WIndies and Australia. In India, he did poorly overall. He "looked good"? So did Watson, but he didn't do well. When someone is averaging 40+ for a series, there is no more "oh, he looked good though". Against the WIndies and that side, well, not much needs to be said. Even in this Aussie team which is not as great against spin as it used to be and with so many left-handers - to which Swann self-admittedly loves to bowl to - he has been hammered all over the place. EDIT: by hammered, I don't necessarily mean conceding 10 runs an over, I mean he is comfortably being dealt with, with no threat.

The guy gets good drift, can sometimes sharply turn it but let's give it a break. He is a simple/decent off-spinner. Australia can and should take him to the cleaners unless the conditions are absolutely in his favour. Take the WIndies out and he is averaging almost 50 FFS.

Yes, a long way to go, but I doubt that record is going to change against teams like Australia, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

 

[scorpiogal]

I violently disagree.

Lee's media boosters are so blind. The guy averages 48 in his last 10 Tests, and has a shocking record in England. Furthermore, the bag he got before the 1st against the England Second XI was taken after they were 1 for 200+. Then, on top of all that, he has played one FC game since December, and hasn't played since tearing a muscle.

The guy's spin doctors are amazing on insisting that he is some sort of walk up start, even if he can prove his fitness.

Robert Craddock! Is that you?!?! I don't think Lee should play in the 4th test. Let the current crop of bowlers clean up their **** act. And ftr, Lee took the top 5 against the Eng Lions, they weren't 1 for 200.

Though, even if Lee played, he couldn't possibly do a worse job than that **** duo did in the last 3 tests.

 

[tooextracool]

The irony. If his captain rated him he would have certainly bowled more than a few overs in this innings. The reality is, he wasn't bowled for good reason, and when he was he got pummeled.

What a ridiculous theory, now I have to question whether you watched that game either? Yes, the captain didn't have faith in him when the ball was swinging around corners and with 4 pace options. And of course with figures of 1/4, Im sure Strauss must have been thoroughly disappointed with his sole spinner.

He has faced 3 sides, India, WIndies and Australia. In India, he did poorly overall. He "looked good"? So did Watson, but he didn't do well. When someone is averaging 40+ for a series, there is no more "oh, he looked good though". Against the WIndies and that side, well, not much needs to be said. Even in this Aussie team which is not as great against spin as it used to be and with so many left-handers - to which Swann self-admittedly loves to bowl to - he has been hammered all over the place. EDIT: by hammered, I don't necessarily mean conceding 10 runs an over, I mean he is comfortably being dealt with, with no threat..

No threat?!! He took 2 bloody wickets in his first over and turned the game on its head.
Why don't you do everyone a favor here and watch the game instead of making somewhat ill-advised comments about his performance in those games. Swann finished the series with 8 wickets, and just so you know no one from Harbhajan to Zaheer to Flintoff took more wickets in that series. Yes his average doesn't look great, but neither does Harbhajan who averaged 35 odd and Mishra who averaged over 42 as opposed to Swann's 39 and lets just remember they bowled at infinitely poorer players of spin than Swann had to contend with. Both those pitches that we saw in India were about as dead as a dodo which is why India chased down 387 odd on the last day with absolute ease in one of the tests and the other test was always going to be a drawn game irrespective of anything that happened. Jumping to conclusions based purely on numbers is about the worst thing to do when it comes to judging player performance.

The guy gets good drift, can sometimes sharply turn it but let's give it a break. He is a simple/decent off-spinner. Australia can and should take him to the cleaners unless the conditions are absolutely in his favour. Take the WIndies out and he is averaging almost 50 FFS.

He's averaging 50 this series, thats pretty much it. No one is hailing him as the successor to Jesus. The point is that hes a good spin bowler when the conditions are favorable and is a fairly capable bat. He's the best in England and almost certainly better than anyone in Australia.

 

[Uppercut]

Furthermore, the bag he got before the 1st against the England Second XI was taken after they were 1 for 200+..

I can totally understand people not wanting to play Lee for fitness reasons, but you can't take anything away from that bowling performance against the Lions mate. Completely took the entire batting lineup apart with reverse swing on a horrendously dead track that no other Aussie bowler got a thing out of.

 

[scorpiogal]

I violently disagree.

Lee's media boosters are so blind. The guy averages 48 in his last 10 Tests, and has a shocking record in England. Furthermore, the bag he got before the 1st against the England Second XI was taken after they were 1 for 200+. Then, on top of all that, he has played one FC game since December, and hasn't played since tearing a muscle.

The guy's spin doctors are amazing on insisting that he is some sort of walk up start, even if he can prove his fitness.

Knew I read this exact post elsewhere

Man, some of the little boys on this forum write better articles about cricket than Craddock.

 

[Ikki]

What a ridiculous theory, now I have to question whether you watched that game either? Yes, the captain didn't have faith in him when the ball was swinging around corners and with 4 pace options. And of course with figures of 1/4, Im sure Strauss must have been thoroughly disappointed with his sole spinner.

Yeah...that actually wasn't my point. I implied that Strauss had reasons but he still got tonked later. The reality is, a good spinner will get more than a couple overs in an innings regardless if it is swinging. Broad bowled almost as much as the others and he wasn't swinging it. And IIRC, Swann took a wicket and many people were whinging about why he wasn't being bowled!

Also, if he is getting hit around in the later innings, where it would help his bowling more, then why would you simply try to whittle it down to 2 innings? And TBF, the shellacking he got in the first test (of which Australia only batted once) was enough for 2 innings worth.

No threat?!! He took 2 bloody wickets in his first over and turned the game on its head.
Why don't you do everyone a favor here and watch the game instead of making somewhat ill-advised comments about his performance in those games. Swann finished the series with 8 wickets, and just so you know no one from Harbhajan to Zaheer to Flintoff took more wickets in that series. Yes his average doesn't look great, but neither does Harbhajan who averaged 35 odd and Mishra who averaged over 42 as opposed to Swann's 39 and lets just remember they bowled at infinitely poorer players of spin than Swann had to contend with. Both those pitches that we saw in India were about as dead as a dodo which is why India chased down 387 odd on the last day with absolute ease in one of the tests and the other test was always going to be a drawn game irrespective of anything that happened. Jumping to conclusions based purely on numbers is about the worst thing to do when it comes to judging player performance.

So now two quick wickets will turn around the fact that he averaged 40 for the series. LOL

Look, I am not going to debate whether Harbhajan or Mishra are good bad/spinners. I have seen enough of them against GOOD players of spin to know otherwise. From what I have seen of Swann, he only seems to be a real wicket-taking option when it is either turning well or the opposition is inferior. His record, thus far, shows that. I am not going to prophesise his career.

He's averaging 50 this series, thats pretty much it. No one is hailing him as the successor to Jesus. The point is that hes a good spin bowler when the conditions are favorable and is a fairly capable bat. He's the best in England and almost certainly better than anyone in Australia.

Yet Hauritz is averaging 32? You use Mishra and Harbhajan to compare, so what about Nath? The reality is, if he is better than Nathan, it ain't by much and that's all I am saying. Australia should have no real problems with him at all. I am sorry that hurts the feelings of some people.

 

[GIMH]

And why should I refer to it when my point has absolutely zilch to do with it? I said Swann is getting hammered, how does England being 1-0 disprove that?



And I don't care that you don't care, so there. . I care.



Of course, he could average 100 and since you don't care for stats then he could have looked great, right?

P.S. Give-Me-A-****ing-Break.

You've missed my point, the point I was replying to initially was when you said that England had arsed their way to 1-0 up. 1-0 is a stat, but apparently we 'arsed' our way there.

I think you overstate a bit my dislike for stats; yes they mean something, but not everything, and to say he bowled poorly in india purely on the basis of averaging 39 is just missing the point a bit. I think a lot of interesting analysis can come from looking at numbers, but also watching the game tells me a whole lot, Swann emerged with a LOT of credibility in that series, had he not performed well there I doubt he would be playing in this series now.

The irony. If his captain rated him he would have certainly bowled more than a few overs in this innings. The reality is, he wasn't bowled for good reason, and when he was he got pummeled. He has faced 3 sides, India, WIndies and Australia. In India, he did poorly overall. He "looked good"? So did Watson, but he didn't do well. When someone is averaging 40+ for a series, there is no more "oh, he looked good though". Against the WIndies and that side, well, not much needs to be said. Even in this Aussie team which is not as great against spin as it used to be and with so many left-handers - to which Swann self-admittedly loves to bowl to - he has been hammered all over the place. EDIT: by hammered, I don't necessarily mean conceding 10 runs an over, I mean he is comfortably being dealt with, with no threat.

The guy gets good drift, can sometimes sharply turn it but let's give it a break. He is a simple/decent off-spinner. Australia can and should take him to the cleaners unless the conditions are absolutely in his favour. Take the WIndies out and he is averaging almost 50 FFS.

Yes, a long way to go, but I doubt that record is going to change against teams like Australia, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

tec pretty much already said exactly what I think on this - if the seamers are dismissing a team for 250 in overcast conditions in the 1st innings, it's hardly a bad reflection on the spinner that he didn't get much of a bowl FFS! Surely you know that?!

I don't think he's the next Muralitharan and nor am I advocating him for MOTS but I also am not reading too much into this average in this series, because he has turned in a matchwinning performance, and at the end of the day, cricket is about winning, not averaging below 30.

 

[fredfertang]

Tresco's get's his 5th first class hundred of the season at Edgbaston - whoever is selected tomorrow it wont be our best XI

 

[Ikki]

You've missed my point, the point I was replying to initially was when you said that England had arsed their way to 1-0 up. 1-0 is a stat, but apparently we 'arsed' our way there.

I was just having a dig there, I wasn't serious.

I think you overstate a bit my dislike for stats; yes they mean something, but not everything, and to say he bowled poorly in india purely on the basis of averaging 39 is just missing the point a bit. I think a lot of interesting analysis can come from looking at numbers, but also watching the game tells me a whole lot, Swann emerged with a LOT of credibility in that series, had he not performed well there I doubt he would be playing in this series now.

Come on, you ignored 3 years of Freddy bowling at about a 40 average because of what you "see". I couldn't understate it if I tried.

tec pretty much already said exactly what I think on this - if the seamers are dismissing a team for 250 in overcast conditions in the 1st innings, it's hardly a bad reflection on the spinner that he didn't get much of a bowl FFS! Surely you know that?!

But it was really only 2 of the seamers. Broad was bowled for...what reason exactly? He doesn't exactly swing it like a banana. If you go back to the match-thread you will see people up in arms about Swann being taken off...after having taken a wicket while bowling only a couple overs. If he was a good enough bowler, he'd be bowled regardless. ESPECIALLY, after taking a wicket. That makes no sense.

I don't think he's the next Muralitharan and nor am I advocating him for MOTS but I also am not reading too much into this average in this series, because he has turned in a matchwinning performance, and at the end of the day, cricket is about winning, not averaging below 30.

I think his average perfectly demonstrates him. He is going to get milked by teams like Australia and India and he'll get his way often enough against teams like the WIndies or NZ. To say he is a bit hyped would be an understatement.

I said some of the Aussie batsmen were making too much of the hype before the 2nd innings and I was pleased to see them score a 100+ worth of runs in that innings.

 

[GIMH]

I was just having a dig there, I wasn't serious.



Come on, you ignored 3 years of Freddy bowling at about a 40 average because of what you "see". I couldn't understate it if I tried.



But it was really only 2 of the seamers. Broad was bowled for...what reason exactly? He doesn't exactly swing it like a banana. If you go back to the match-thread you will see people up in arms about Swann being taken off...after having taken a wicket while bowling only a couple overs. If he was a good enough bowler, he'd be bowled regardless. ESPECIALLY, after taking a wicket. That makes no sense.



I think his average perfectly demonstrates him. He is going to get milked by teams like Australia and India and he'll get his way often enough against teams like the WIndies or NZ. To say he is a bit hyped would be an understatement.

I said some of the Aussie batsmen were making too much of the hype before the 2nd innings and I was pleased to see them score a 100+ worth of runs in that innings.

It's hard to tell when you're being serious, you know

Anyway, I didn't "ignore" Freddie averaging 40 for 3 years, I'm well aware that he doesn't take enough wickets, I simply still believe that he is a bowler Australia would still love to have in their ranks. Let's not go there again then, as I said, I will discuss that with you in another thread, another time, when the Ashes are over and I am less hyped

People were up in arms about Swann being taken off...yeah you're right - which tells you he was bowling well. Blame the captain, not the bowler. He undoubtedly would have bowled the next day if needed though, but I'm sure you don't need reminding that Australia lost 9 wickets for about 150 runs.

His average, overall, at the minute is about 30. That's not too shabby, so if you think that perfectly demonstrates him, then fair enough...as I said, I'm not saying he's the second coming of Jim Laker or anything, but he's a better spinner than we've had in recent times, and certainly not a prank bowler or someone who is a liability to his side.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, I don't think he is anything greater than decent. Which is how I would rate Vettori or Harris or a Kaneria. They are going to have their moments, even against good players of spin, but on the whole I don't expect them to turn around a series. As I mentioned, I thought Australia were giving him way too much respect.